Door Installation Contractor Contracts - DOC

Document Sample
Door Installation Contractor Contracts - DOC Powered By Docstoc
					                                                    AGENDA ITEM NO.

NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to:    Cabinet - 13th December 2006

From:         Assistant Director – Corporate Property

Subject:      PARTNERING ARRANGEMENTS FOR HOUSING
              CAPITAL PROGRAMME REFURBISHMENT WORKS

Portfolio:    Housing (Councillor R.G. Copland)




1.    Recommendations

1.1   That by virtue of being identified as offering the best overall value
      service to the Council, the following contractors be appointed:

       Pro Fascia Limited to carry out soffit, fascia and rainwater
        goods renewals; and
       CCSS Limited to carry out the installation and maintenance of
        door entry systems

1.2   That due to the fact that only one tender was submitted which
      offers poor value for money, that the existing arrangements
      continue to be used in respect of:

       Environmental works, such as tarmacing, fencing, installation of
        new/enhanced lighting, etc.




BRENT DAVIS
2.    Background

2.1   The background to Partnering in construction services has been
      written in detail in previous reports to Cabinet, the last one being at
      the Cabinet meeting of 26th July 2006.


3.    Report

3.1   The Housing Capital Programme is the Council's major mechanism
      for achieving its investment priorities for its housing stock as
      contained in its Housing Strategy and Housing Revenue Account
      (HRA) Business Plan. It also funds expenditure on private sector
      dwellings through various types of grants and loans.

3.2   In terms of the Council's housing stock, the Housing Capital
      Programme consists of various programmes of work including:
       Kitchen and bathroom renewals;
       Rewiring works;
       Central heating installations and upgrades;
       Soffit, fascia and rainwater goods renewals;
       Environmental works, such as tarmacing, fencing, installation of
        new/enhanced lighting, etc.;
       Installation of door entry systems;
       Installation of fire alarm systems; and for many years
       Installation of replacement PVCu double windows.

3.3   In order to seek enhanced value for money and increased levels of
      customer focus and satisfaction, we have been carrying out a major
      procurement exercise over the last two years to appoint partnering
      contractors to carry out these works for the next 5-6 years. Contracts
      to date have been let for an initial period of four years with an option
      to extend them to six years, subject to annual reviews to ensure that
      performance and quality levels, [which will be regularly measured via
      agreed Key Performance Indicators (KPI's)] are of an acceptable
      standard.

3.4   The partnering contracts for these three programmes of work were
      originally tendered as part of the comprehensive housing refurbish-
      ment partnering programme tendering exercise in 2005, but tenders
      received were either of an inadequate quality or did not represent
      Best Value, so could not be recommended for acceptance.
      Accordingly, the decision was taken, as approved by Cabinet at its
      meeting on 19th October 2005 (Minute 221) that these particular
      programmes of work be re-tendered.
3.5   However, with limited resources and all efforts being concentrated on
      setting up and embedding the previously awarded partnering
      contracts, especially the main kitchen and bathroom renewal
      programme, it was not possible to implement the re-tender exercise
      until this summer.

3.6   As with the other established partnering contracts the tender process
      for these three contracts has been administered by Dunlop Haywards,
      the Council’s technical partnering consultant.
      The contracts are to be let using the Term Partnering Contract (TPC
      2005) prepared by Trowers & Hamlins, the Council’s legal partnering
      consultant.

3.7   The yearly value of these programmes of work is as follows:
       Soffit, fascia and rainwater goods                £300,000
        renewals
       Installation and maintenance of door              £200,000
        entry systems                                     (installation only)
       Environmental Works                               £255,000

3.8   Because the value of the work for each contract is below the EU
      threshold, tenders were able to be selected from the local area and
      the incumbent contractors were also included where possible.

3.9   Prior to tender it was agreed with the partnering consultant
      administering the tender process that, in accordance with Best Value
      and partnering principles, and in line with other partnering tenders we
      have evaluated, the evaluation of tenders and contractors would be
      based on both quality and price, on a 60:40 quality to cost ratio.
      The following further evaluation ratio was agreed to reflect this
      requirement:
           Quality Evaluation             60%
           Desktop Evaluation             45%
           Interview                      15%
           Cost Evaluation                40%
           Profit                          4%
           Central Office Overheads       10%
           Model projects                 26%
      Subsequently it was agreed with the consultant that the interview
      process was unnecessary and the score awarded for the desktop
      evaluation was amended to 60%.
3.10 The following contractors (presented in alphabetical order), were
     invited to tender for each area of work:

                Contractor                          Area of Work
      ADS Limited                       Door Entry Systems
      Barron McCann                     Door Entry Systems
      CCSS Limited                      Door Entry Systems
      Cirrus Communication Systems      Door Entry Systems
      Delaware Communications plc       Door Entry Systems
      G.W. Deeley Limited               Environmental Works
      G.W. Deeley Limited               Soffit, Fascia & Rainwater Goods
      Hope & Aldridge Limited           Environmental Works
      Hope & Aldridge Limited           Soffit, Fascia & Rainwater Goods
      J. & S. Seddon Limited            Environmental Works
      J. & S. Seddon Limited            Soffit, Fascia & Rainwater Goods
      Nationwide Windows                Soffit, Fascia & Rainwater Goods
      Pro Fascia Limited                Soffit, Fascia & Rainwater Goods
      Secure One Limited                Door Entry Systems
      T.R. Ellis & Co. Limited          Environmental Works
      T.R. Ellis & Co. Limited          Soffit, Fascia & Rainwater Goods
      Walsgrave Contractors             Environmental Works

3.11 Tenders were issued on 4th July 2006 and were required to be
     returned on or before 25th August 2006. Returned tenders were
     opened by the Cabinet Member for Housing on 25th August 2006.

3.12 The following contractors submitted tenders:

                Contractor                          Area of Work
      Barron McCann                     Door Entry Systems
      CCSS Limited                      Door Entry Systems
      Delaware Communications plc       Door Entry Systems
      Hope & Aldridge Limited           Soffit, Fascia & Rainwater Goods
      J. & S. Seddon Limited            Environmental Works
      J. & S. Seddon Limited            Soffit, Fascia & Rainwater Goods
      Pro Fascia Limited                Soffit, Fascia & Rainwater Goods
4.    Evaluation Results

4.1   In terms of the evaluation of ‘quality’, tenderers were required to give
      written responses to specific topics to identify their approach in
      delivering the requirements of the contract. These were fully outlined
      in the Invitation to Tender and, briefly, comprised the following key
      areas of service delivery:

       The Company                        Partnering Approach
       Partnering/Term Programme          Innovation and Proposals for
        Timetable                           Project
       Health & Safety                    Risk Management
       Incentives                         KPIs
       Security                           Defects
       Financial Considerations           TUPE
       IT                                 Monitoring

4.2   To obtain robust responses from the tenderers, the tender document-
      ation requested detailed proposals to a number of issues under each
      heading. The panel to assess the quality submission comprised the
      following:

      Neil Thody                  Dunlop Haywards Ltd.
      Chris Gray                  Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council
      Linda Downes                Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council

4.3   In terms of the financial aspects of the tender evaluation, the price
      framework was broken down into the following sections:

         Profit
         Central office overheads
         Preliminaries
         Schedule of rates
         Model projects (excluding environmental works)

      Service providers were asked to price against each of the above.

      Costs submitted by each tenderer under the above heads were then
      extracted and scored against the lowest submission by a graded
      scale.

      The financial evaluation was carried out as a ‘desktop’ exercise by
      the consultant.
4.4   Taking into consideration the quality evaluation and cost evaluation,
      the following compounded results were obtained for the various lots:

      Soffit, fascia and rainwater goods renewals

                                        Quality        Cost       Total
                Contractor              Result        Result     Result
                                      (Max 60%)     (Max 40%)    (100%)

      Hope & Aldridge Limited            6.00        11.60       17.60

      Pro Fascia Limited                19.46        34.00       53.46

      J. & S. Seddon Limited             4.51        27.00       71.51


      Installation and maintenance of door entry systems

                                        Quality        Cost       Total
                Contractor              Result        Result     Result
                                      (Max 60%)     (Max 40%)    (100%)

      Barron McCann                     21.26        31.60       52.86

      CCSS Limited                      38.40        40.00       78.40
      Delaware Communications plc       40.84        32.60       73.44


      Environmental works, such as tarmacing, fencing, installation of
      new/enhanced lighting, etc.

                                        Quality        Cost       Total
                Contractor              Result        Result     Result
                                      (Max 60%)     (Max 40%)    (100%)

      J. & S. Seddon Limited            44.45        40.00       84.45


5.0   Conclusions

5.1   After the tender evaluation process and further discussions
      between Council officers and the consultant were held, it was
      concluded that the appropriate action to be taken with the
      contracts was as follows:
5.1.1 Soffits, fascias and rainwater goods renewals

       Following concerns regarding the tender price submitted by J.S.
       Seddon Limited, the highest scoring tenderer, which was some
       60% higher than the next best placed, it was considered that their
       appointment could not be justified on value for money grounds.

       Therefore, whilst not fully supported by the combined quality/cost
       results analysis, it is considered that the tender submitted by Pro
       Fascia Limited represents best value for the Council and that they
       should be awarded this contract.

5.1.2 Installation and maintenance of door entry systems

       It is considered that the combined quality/cost results analysis
       indicate that the tender submitted by CCSS Limited represents
       best value for the Council and that they should be awarded this
       contract.

       The tender documentation for this contract indicated to tenderers
       that the Council would seek to implement a regime of maintenance
       for all its new and existing door entry systems, with the successful
       installation contractor.

       It is therefore considered appropriate to add such maintenance to
       the contract by subsequent agreement with the appointed
       contractor.

5.1.3 Environmental works, such as tarmacing, fencing, installation of
      new/enhanced lighting etc.

       Only one tender from J.S. Seddon Limited was received for this
       contract, and further analysis of the costs they submitted for the
       soffit and fascia package indicate that costs for this contract would
       increase by some 35% over current prices.

       Therefore it is considered that the tender submitted by J.S.
       Seddon Limited does not demonstrate best value and that the
       better option for the Council is to continue with its existing
       procurement arrangements, i.e. tender the works annually with the
       various contractors currently used.
6.0   Financial Considerations

6.1   Based on the indicative tender costs compared to the existing
      contract, it is estimated that for the soffit and fascia contract there
      would be an annual saving of £12,000, which would equate to an
      estimated £60,000 over five years.

6.2   For the door entry contract the bid from the recommended
      contractor is approximately 15% lower than that submitted by the
      incumbent contractor. It is difficult to quantify things in overall
      cash terms because of the individual nature and variances of each
      installation. However, on a pure budgetary basis the 15% lower
      cost referred to above would result in an estimated annual £27,000
      saving against the £200,000 planned yearly budget, which would
      equate to an estimated £135,000 over five years.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Door Installation Contractor Contracts document sample